Sequester - who cares!!!!!

BothellFebruary 28, 2013

Congress headed out of town tonite for an extended weekend. Issue really matters to them. I'm done. I don't think I'll vote for the incumbents when they come up for re-election. Governing isn't what they are interested in. It's all about their posturing and parties. Why don't they grow up and do their jobs. Just sign me DISGUSTED.

What is happening in Washington is beyond belief. All Americans should be furious with the actions...or rather inaction... of their elected officials but instead some seem thrilled that it gives them some twisted reason to blame the President.

I used to love American politics, I was a complete junky. Now all I want to do when I read certain posts here and listen to the news is take a shower. It makes me sad, but more than sad it makes me angry. America is not what it used to be......and I don't know when it will be again.

I have lost total interest it's all just so petty and hateful, I feel like I have lost a good friend and for that I am sorry.

Just so I'm clear. I am angry at all of them, not just one party. Neither party gets a free pass when they leave town instead of work. Their salaries should be cut in an percentage amount greater than the budget cuts that are about to hit. Each and everyone of them should have to spend at least one day with a family whose income is about to be reduced. They all need to see the effects of their game playing.

Since the Koch brothers and their Heritage foundation have been brought up, I'd like to bring up another Billionaire, Pete Peterson, who seems to have his hand in this affair. (snip)

"With $85 billion across-the-board spending cuts, known as "the sequestration," set to take effect this Friday, a new investigation reveals how billionaire investors, such as Peter Peterson, have helped reshaped the national debate on the economy, the debt and social spending. Between 2007 and 2011, Peterson personally contributed nearly $500 million to his Peter G. Peterson Foundation to push Congress to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, while providing tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy..."

Ok, maybe I'm all wrong, but from everything I've read, sequestration is not this gloom and doom scenario that Obama would have us believe. Say we have 100 border patrol agents, and we have budgeted 1 million dollars this past year for them. Next year we want to budget 1.25 million for border patrol agents, but because of sequestration we will only get 1.2 million. How many get fired?

Fisher said the Border Patrol will move resources around to counter the cuts, but it will still have an impact.

And for those crossing at border bridges, the sequestration translates into even longer waits.

Kevin McAleenan is the Acting Assistant Commissioner for U.S. Customs.

“It would be about 2,750 officers cut, about 12.5 percent of our staff. The ports of entry would have significant impact on wait times and our ability to move people and things through the border," McAleenan said.

Unless the Commanders of the Joint Chiefs are lying under oath.......and I don't believe they are.....they have told Congress the cuts will have a serious impact on Americas readiness, safety and the morale of the men and women in the armed forces.

I think what some are missing in this situation is that the cuts are very specifically targeted. There is no flexibility within any department to make the cuts in area that have the least impact on their various departments.

More important than the fact the cuts are arbitrary is the fact that Congress , yet again, has not dealt with the debt in a comprehensive, bipartisan manner .

Agree with Bothell, they are a disgrace. Leaving without dealing with the problem. The entire bunch of them should be tossed.

esh, if there is going to be a 2.3% cut in increased spending...you tell me about the border control information. It just doesn't equate. I'm truly sick of the scare tactics of this administration. Everything is gloom and doom and one crisis after the next. Nothing positive. I'd like to send them all home and start fresh, that includes both sides of the aisle. They are so busy playing gotcha politics, they could care less about the people who put them there.

It is 2.3 across the board, but higher than 2.3 percent in some areas.

It's not just the Administration trying to "scare" people. What I see is people trying to get realistic information out there about what the impact is. If this Administration was acting like this was no big deal, you'd be hammering them for that approach.

You know what I'm sick of? People attacking this administration no matter what they do. Everything they do is wrong. Even when they take a stance that you supported before they adopted it (the ol' "I was for it before I was against it").

They are so busy playing gotcha politics, they could care less about the people who put them there.

Yes, I hold my guys accountable. In the 2012 election I voted against my incumbent officials. I write them letters indicating that I want them to support their constituents, not hold up progress for politics sake.

So question back to you, again: How have you held your guys accountable?

mrsk--where is there a post on this forum where you carry on about how delinquent or incompetent or irresponsible any Republican representative or senator is? I don't read all the posts, so I guess I missed all the threads where you chastise them the way you do the president or House and Senate Democrats. Do you have a daily outrage against Republicans posted somewhere on this forum? I have seem your daily outrages against Democrats, but I missed every one of your daily outrages against Republicans.

I too contact my representatives esh. I voted for Mary Landrieu to represent me in the Senate. She happens to be a democrat. I'm not an all or nothing party line voter. I'm a fiscal conservative who believes in smaller government and less taxes. This is a belief I've held for years. My party does not represent me to the extent I would like, but this administration represents me not at all.

I have seem your daily outrages against Democrats, but I missed every one of your daily outrages against Republicans.

Sorry Kate, there are so many of those posted by the liberals here, don't you think it's good to toss in something from the other side now and then? It feeds the ravenous pack mentality of attack the messenger and to heck with the message. Or do you think all outrage should be directed at Republicans?

Ohhh, Kate your post is sooo good. I will wait with bated breath for the next example of your instructions on the subjects and opinions others are required to post although I could not possibly expect to equal your own sparkling wit. Please, please instruct me and mrskjun on the exact words we should use in order to satisfy your exacting requirements. I am sure your prognostications of what we will be thinking are far more accurate than what we thought we were thinking, don't you think?

Perhaps I should copy your lovely insightful missive and read it daily as an exercise in the proper humility we poor mortals should show to you of the vaunted, ethereal, so good-speke thoughts. I could print it in indelible ink on an indestructible material to save it for posterity to show the foolishness of attempting to formulate actual thoughts that do not agree with yours.

To begin with, the figure of 2.3 percent "across the board" is highly misleading. Because that includes all the spending that isn't being touched, like social security payments, interest on the debt, the VA, pay for the troops, and so on. Its concentrated into specific areas, and their cuts are 8.-something percent. And even in there, they can't cut stuff like signed contracts, they can't cut stuff like contributions to pension plans, and suddenly, it turns into 20% cuts in what remains. So thats where you get the people being furloughed for weeks on end, firing scientists from the NIH and NSF, and so on.

Posted by RpR_ 3-4 (My Page) on Fri, Mar 1, 13 at 0:39
Posted by david52
"Its not your job on the line."---------------Nope, it is those who suck the teat of the tax payer till it is dry.

Right, like meat inspectors, air tower control officers, the FBI, the people doing cancer research, all those others sucking the gvt teat dry.

Thanks Chase I agree with you the continued wailing and misrepresentation about spending astounds. Warnings from the IMF in previous posts ignored there is nothing conserved by. Austerity without revenue increases do the term fiscal conservative continues to be
a misnomer!

Posted by RpR_
"Right, like meat inspectors, air tower control officers, the FBI, the people doing cancer research, all those others sucking the gvt teat dry."--------------------------People can drive, I am not worried in the least about my food, cancer research, ultimate leeches.
OF all the items you trotted out, only defense is in the Constitution.
We survived without all the others before and we still will.

Ever hear that something something about "provide for the general welfare"? --------------------------------------No I am not an expert, nor amI a naive ignorant as you may be.

---------------------------------------------------------------
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence++++ and general Welfare++++ of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yea, will I live on the corner of two section roads, surveyed by the Federal Gvt, paved and maintained by the county, and the delineations of my property are done via the Federal system of measurements so I'm protected if my neighbor wants to argue over property lines.

When I drive into town on my county road, I first hit the state highway - paved, plowed, and maintained by the state. Four miles of that, then I get to a US Highway, paved, plowed, and maintained by the Feds. Today I went with my daughter teachers conferences, the school paid for by state funds, local property taxes, and Federal grants to help them deal with the handicapped kids. Got gas, the US Gallon regulated by the Feds for quantity and quality so I know I'm getting that octane and not getting 1/10th water, pay with a credit card with the interest, payment program etc. all regulated by the gvt, and should I lose, it, the gvt says I only have to pay $50 of what ever charges get run up.

Then we came home and looked up some dirt cheap air fares - so we can fly on planes that are deemed technically safe by the Feds, flown by pilots licensed by the Feds, using air ports staffed by Federal traffic controllers, using fuel regulated by the Feds and so on.

The point being that we, as a country, got where we are today, the leading economic and military power in the world, through the far-more-often-than-not beneficial intervention of the Federal gvt.

Which brings up disaster capitalism. The idea is to loan money to the point that the country is bankrupt, then the people who loaned you the money in the first place connive/force/blackmail whatever with the leaders of that country to loot the resources, and, best of all, leave the country swimming in debt.

Here in the US, this takes on a different tact - get in power, loot the common wealth (gvt resources) as much as you can by "privatizing" anything and everything, appointing incompetent buffoons and ideologues, if not flat out industry shills, to manage the process. Bonus, cut taxes drastically for the wealthiest while driving up the debt to pay for it - which is about as blunt a tactic of looting the common wealth that I can think of .... no, wait .... lets bail out the banks that just looted the country with more tax payer resources. And remember, that happened under the Bush admin, in spite of all the propaganda efforts to tie it to Obama.

Then, lose the election and make the country ungovernable, blocking everything imaginable, throwing up bogus roadblocks on the debt ceiling, threats to close the gvt, sequester, and so on.

And here they are, waiting on the wings, to come in and loot the place once again. Getting little minions to run around talking about how gvt is so bad, who seem not to have a clue just how they got where they are today - which was the hundreds of years of support, regulation, and intervention of that same gvt they now claim to despise.

Which brings up disaster capitalism. The idea is to loan money to the point that the country is bankrupt, then the people who loaned you the money in the first place connive/force/blackmail whatever with the leaders of that country to loot the resources, and, best of all, leave the country swimming in debt.

In the case of Latin America, there were no complaints from the IMF and World Bank as corrupt leaders (and their families and cronies) pocketed the funds instead of spending the proceeds on projects designed to help the citizens and improve the economy. Conniving wasn't necessary if the governments already had its own 'Chicago boys' helping with the economy.

Here in the US, this takes on a different tact - get in power, loot the common wealth (gvt resources) as much as you can by "privatizing" anything and everything, appointing incompetent buffoons and ideologues, if not flat out industry shills, to manage the process. Bonus, cut taxes drastically for the wealthiest while driving up the debt to pay for it - which is about as blunt a tactic of looting the common wealth that I can think of .... no, wait .... lets bail out the banks that just looted the country with more tax payer resources. And remember, that happened under the Bush admin, in spite of all the propaganda efforts to tie it to Obama.

Perfect description of recent history. Neoconservatives - not just for starting wars.

Backing this up a bit for MrsK. who says it isn't all gloom & doom. There are several military bases here & they all have civilian employees who will be furl lowed one day a week, that is 20 per cent of their income. If they make less income who else do you think has their income reduced? That would be the local, small business owner. How do you expect the economy to recover & grow while you & the party of "NO" continue to make things worse for them? Your logic does not compute. And what do you say to the unemployed father with 2 children who has been looking for a job, any job, and will now receive 120.00 month less in unemployment benefits. That is a week of food for him and his daughters. But wait, you weren't going to punish/hurt the truly needy. Please explain how they will survive?

"...there is no such thing as bad luck, every one makes their own luck or fortune."

What a ridiculous idea with a total lack of imagination required in order to be unashamed and unembarrassed while making it.
Try running that past the child or the parents of a child with a slowly killing, terminal disease requiring frequent and prolonged hospitalizations. Try telling that to the thousands of young adults who are struck with serious, difficult to manage mental illness commonly striking in the very early twenties, often during the middle years of college, forever changing the course of not only their life and their parent's lives. Try telling that to the millions who lost their jobs under Bushjr.'s watch in 2008, never to equal the salary or security of the previous year's ever again in their lifetime. Try telling that to the millions in this country who's corporations ( people, too!) raided their retirement accounts dry thus leaving those who worked all their lives destitute in their golden years. Oopsie!
Try telling that to the parents who lost their child during the war in Iraq - parents who are citizens of Iraq or citizens of any other country who's children were there under the direction and lies of Bushjr/Cheney, while people here cheered them on and rambled on blah blah blah about being REAL Americans, patriotic Americans, PROUD of supporting the troops with a two second effort put in hitting that send button to redirect a manufactured, sappy message to another ten people from their contact list.
Try telling that to the bright child who spends his entire public school years in a district which is located in the bottom end of the income base in the state, forever robbing that child of a basic, decent foundation of education obligated to him by this country, being a necessity in order to have a decent shot to qualify to the decent or better universities in this country - thus forever changing the life of that child, that what could have been.
Try telling that to the wife and children who's husband and father walks away from the family, disappearing from their life and taking with him the basic emotional security of unity which each and every parent has an obligation to provide to his family. Tell that to a single widow of two children who loses her job because the boss has a wife who has a niece who wants that job, so, - sorry about that!
I have no doubt that a self righteous, self satisfied snappy reply or two or more will follow this, explaining why everyone who ever had some tragic events happen in their lives somehow had it coming to them them due to poor choices made, but I'm not interested in reading them.
So I won't.

Oh wait, you must have missed what Obama said last. Most of you won't even notice it. That was his words. So let's see if it's gloom and doom and the end of the world, or we won't even notice it. He's got his bases covered.

Oh wait, you must have missed what Obama said last. Most of you won't even notice it. That was his words. So let's see if it's gloom and doom and the end of the world, or we won't even notice it. He's got his bases covered.

Wonder why Wall Street did what it did.

*

Yes, and just imagine what it might do if more spending cuts went into effect!

Alas, I was advised last week that a recession is likely unless "Washington gets it's act together" and that it was a shame because "good things are poised to happen" in the economy if there were signals to business that Washington knew what it was doing. There's a lot of cash sitting around that could be in the economy, paying salaries, producing goods, and providing tax revenue and community improvements.

But our President and our legislators are more interested in running their mouths and playing games.

All govt action is inherently inefficient. It can't be otherwise. When people spend other people's money, they are going to do so inefficiently. So govt roads, govt agencies, govt retirement plans, govt health care, govt post office, etc is all going to stink. They are going to be disasters.
The same thing applies to most non-profits. They spend other people's money and hence they are very wasteful and inefficient and often downright corrupt.

So....if you want more govt, then you are inviting more corruption, waste, and economic slowdown.

When people spend other people's money, they are going to do so inefficiently

Yet we award hedge fund managers with a 15% income tax rate, that carried interest tax break. They risk other people's money - and you say they do it inefficiently?

Really? Mutual funds must not be very efficient. Food and farm coops aren't efficient. Banks aren't efficient - after all, they pool savings accounts and loan out other people's money. Paying an expert in some field to do something is inefficient.

So no, your basic premise isn't true at all.

Gvt - good government, is open, careful, methodical, and reaches consensus before acting. Sure, thats less "efficient" than a dictatorship.

And once again, here we have someone who has benefited from two+ centuries of significant and pervasive gvt intervention in society, - all the schools, the police, the roads, standardized, regulated, and price controlled efficient electricity, fuel, schools, libraries, currencies, credit cards, and so on, everywhere and just about everything you touch was made possible by the gvt, and here we are, trashing government.

The one reason that I don't think sequestration will have much of an impact is due to the significant increases in IT spending that the Obama administration started 4 yrs ago. Each department in the US govt has been under a mandate to get IT into the 21st century. IT spending was flat to the end of Bush and now, 4 yrs later, because of spending, cost savings are being achieved. CIO.gov is a great website.

As with any IT project, one goal is to reduce costs. Because the size of sequestration is relatively small, I think most of it will be absorbed by the IT advancements that are coming on line.

And, no, this does't make for flashy headlines or great talking points.

So you believe it would be just that the stupid die?"--------------------I do not play guessing games nor do I care either way who goes belly-up or not.

There is no such thing as bad luck, every one makes their own fortune or misfortune.

I'm not asking you to guess anything. I previously asked about people who die from eating bad meat, and you expressed your opinion that "stupidity has just rewards." So I was trying to confirm your opinion that you feel it is just if people die from consuming tainted food. But now you're running away from what you wrote, which is surprisingly cowardly, but you have done it before, so perhaps it's expected.

I'm not sure that IT savings are going to make up for the lost billions in NIH and NSF grants to universities, nor to the meat inspectors, air traffic controllers, national parks, FBI, military sub-contractors, and all the others who were deliberately targeted in the sequester to make it as painful and stupid as possible.

The fact the budget is being cut is , in and of itself, not a bad thing. It is the arbitrary nature in which they are being enforced , with no flexibility within the departments. Not only that but SS Medicare/aid and reforming the tax code isn't even part of the equation

They took the easy way out instead of doing they're job.......that's what I find most egregious.

There are some in the House who want to give the administration the ability to pick and chose the cuts - he says he will refuse to sign any such legislation.

Congress has the job of taxing and spending, telling the administration how much and what programs to spend the money they raise/borrow. So thats ceding their Constitutional authority - along with, now days, their Constitutional authority to declare war - they just let the President fight the never-ending 'war on terror' any which way he wants to, with no end in site.

Thankfully, some of the Republicans are having second thoughts, like maybe given the chance and a free hand, Obama might cut farm subsidies in Alabama and Mississippi and use the money for more police to stop gun violence in Chicago.

Yes Chase, I totally agree.
Except for Obama who now has his job security, they weren't busy working on behalf of our country's best interest- they were attempting to secure the votes to keep them in office by doing the bidding of those who voted them. They have learned very well what is expected of them to do and how they are expected to do it. They are as we created them to be. We got what we asked for.

Are conservatives or conservative defender members on this forum approving of this non-action?
Im finding it difficult to figure that out.

I'm not asking you to guess anything. I previously asked about people who die from eating bad meat, and you expressed your opinion that "stupidity has just rewards." So I was trying to confirm your opinion that you feel it is just if people die from consuming tainted food. But now you're running away from what you wrote, which is surprisingly cowardly, but you have done it before, so perhaps it's expected.-------------------------My rhetoric is self-anwering.

Your original question with the word, should, quite plainly exposes your silly little game.
You want particulars from rhetoric that has no particulars. That is either obtuse ignorance or just the failing trick of a cheap hustler.

As I said, I am not concerned in the least with what ever this political game brings forth.
If that is a problem for you, too bad.

Posted by Factotem
I'm not asking you to guess anything. I previously asked about people who die from eating bad meat, and you expressed your opinion that "stupidity has just rewards." So I was trying to confirm your opinion that you feel it is just if people die from consuming tainted food. But now you're running away from what you wrote, which is surprisingly cowardly, but you have done it before, so perhaps it's expected.-------------------------My rhetoric is self-anwering.

Your original question with the word, should, quite plainly exposes your silly little game.
You want particulars from rhetoric that has no particulars. That is either obtuse ignorance or just the failing trick of a cheap hustler.

As I said, I am not concerned in the least with what ever this political game brings forth.
If that is a problem for you, too bad.

As I feared. You are too cowardly to stand behind your own words. Sad. But not entirely unexpected, as this seems to be common among those on the right who are frightened of exposing what they really think.

"As I feared. You are too cowardly to stand behind your own words. Sad. But not entirely unexpected, as this seems to be common among those on the right who are frightened of exposing what they really think."-------------------EWWWW, you are calling me names.
OOOHHHHHHH, the humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Factoto, your rhetoric, or lack thereof, speaks of your intellect so I will just have to suffer your slings and arrows.

@David52
You don't see the difference between mutual fund managers and govt spending? seriously? does the mutual fund manager have anything at stake in his work?

and just to be clear.....you seriously believe that people spend other people's money as efficiently as they spend their own?

seriously people.....this is the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism. Does the sun shine? is 2+2=4?

and where on this green earth have we ever seen a good govt that is open, careful, methodical, etc.? has such a govt ever existed? and how long do we wait for one before we begin to realize that there is something inherently wrong with govt?

as for benefitting from govt intervention, tell that to the millions of kids whose futures are struck out b/c their school is such a hole.

and if all this stuff was made possible by the govt, what did this nation do before we had a govt that regulated everything?

"I'm not sure that IT savings are going to make up for the lost billions in NIH and NSF grants to universities, nor to the meat inspectors, air traffic controllers, national parks, FBI, military sub-contractors, and all the others who were deliberately targeted in the sequester to make it as painful and stupid as possible."

The way I read the sequester plan is that the a department and it's budget gets cut. If the Department has achieved savings in other ways, then net net the same amt of money could be available for spending.. I've been following CIO.gov and the various tech critiques out there. Savings are definitely underway.

Jmc, I don't read the sequester that way. The cuts are specifically targeted and there is no flexibility within the Department to absorb them in any way other than specifically detailed in the sequester documentation.

Having said that it is great to see how much has been saved by the Obama government through mechanization and modernization. Too bad they are so bad at tooting their own horn.

@David52
You don't see the difference between mutual fund managers and govt spending? seriously? does the mutual fund manager have anything at stake in his work?

Are you saying that all the decision-makers in financial institutions that lost customers' money failed along with their clients?

Insurance companies spend others' money. Do you believe they should be eliminated?

and just to be clear.....you seriously believe that people spend other people's money as efficiently as they spend their own?

So you do not buy insurance, because you do not trust other people to spend your money for you, correct?

seriously people.....this is the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism. Does the sun shine? is 2+2=4?

Yes and yes. But there are facts in evidence for those propositions. You have presented no facts.

and where on this green earth have we ever seen a good govt that is open, careful, methodical, etc.? has such a govt ever existed?

Are you claiming the private industry, like health insurance companies, have all those qualities and put their customers' interests ahead of their own?

and how long do we wait for one before we begin to realize that there is something inherently wrong with govt?

Utopia fallacy. Next?

as for benefitting from govt intervention, tell that to the millions of kids whose futures are struck out b/c their school is such a hole.

Utopia fallacy again. Strike two.

Tell us where the nonreligious poor children would attend school if we eliminated public schools. Of course, if you eliminate regulation, children would not be forced by the government to even go to school, nor would schools and teachers need any sort of certification to ply their trade. That is what you advocate, correct?

and if all this stuff was made possible by the govt, what did this nation do before we had a govt that regulated everything?

Had children working in factories, a food supply rife with poisonous product, filthier air and water, dangerous working conditions, citizens at the mercy of private fire departments, fake medicines indistinguishable from efficacious ones, and so on. That is the situation to which you would like to return, correct?

I take it you advocate eliminating government fire departments and returning to a system of private fire companies, as well as privatizing all streets and roads in the United States. All safety regulations -- workplace, product, food, medicine, etc. -- should be eliminated so the market can work most efficiently. Correct?

Once again, we have a "libertarian" who has benefited immensely from generations of Americans working together with their govt, 230-odd years ofregulations, laws, guidelines, roads, schools, medical systems, electrical systems, road and rail systems, police, fire, telephone, banking, investing, land surveying, courts and a judicial system, on and on and on. Creating the worlds wealthiest and militarily strongest country in history.

Its really pretty funny. They think it all just happened out of the blue, gvt actually got in the way of entrepreneurship, and if we do away with all that gvt, life will be better. ~snort~.

Lets see, if I remember correctly, your utopia is that mecca of Capitalism, Hong Kong, - which, by the way, has some of the strictest government regulations in the world, necessary for such a crowded place. I saw that their gvt was planning on allowing massive immigration, and the locals were protesting, seeing how they had forked over all the taxes to build all the infrastructure that the new comers would overwhelm.

Hagel said the Navy will gradually stand down four air wings, 80 jets and helicopters, beginning in April.

Starting immediately the Air Force will reduce flying hours, having an impact on training and readiness.

The Army will curtail training for all units except for those deploying to Afghanistan, affecting about 80 percent of all Army operational units.

Notices go out later this month for thousands of civilian furloughs, reducing pay by 20 percent.
Steps already taken include a hiring freeze, terminating or laying off some contract employees, cutbacks in maintenance.

Hagel added, “I know these cuts will cause pain, particularly in our civilian workforce.” He added “I’m also concerned, as we all are, about the impact on readiness these cuts will have across our force.”

David, before we go on to discuss specifics, just tell us whether you believe people spend other people's money just as efficiently as they do their own. Let's get that squared away first.

David writes:
Tell us where the nonreligious poor children would attend school if we eliminated public schools. Of course, if you eliminate regulation, children would not be forced by the government to even go to school, nor would schools and teachers need any sort of certification to ply their trade. That is what you advocate, correct?

Where do non-religious children go to buy hamburgers and ipods or any other consumer good? if public schools were gone, then every parent could pick their child's schools. Muslim school, buddhist school, flat earth school, atheist school, liberal school, etc. etc. The free-market provides massive choices for people.

and yes, I certainly advocate a complete separation between school and state just as I hold to a separation of church and state. The govt has nothing to say to parents about educating their children.

David writes:
I take it you advocate eliminating government fire departments and returning to a system of private fire companies, as well as privatizing all streets and roads in the United States. All safety regulations -- workplace, product, food, medicine, etc. -- should be eliminated so the market can work most efficiently. Correct?

I believe in privatizing all the things you mentioned in your first sentence. I am not for removing all safety regulations, but these regulations should be the jurisdiction of local govts. Two principles liberals and republicans (pardon the redundancy) can learn from Tommy Jefferson. First, govt should be as close to the people as possible. Second, that govt governs best that governs least.

Well, lets see, I answered the first question already. And you ridiculed that, so why bother to answer again about pooling money and letting others - experts in their field - spend it far more efficiently than I could do by myself? I find it pretty obvious.

Your second question is a direct misquote, I never said that.

And gee, your third question is yet another misquote. I never said that either.

Sun well over the yardarm, maybe?

And here's a question for you - can you give us an example - anywhere in history or the present - where your ideals of near total libertarianism have worked? Ever?

Versus a rather well established history of how the better organized societies with strong gvt backing do so well?

David, before we go on to discuss specifics, just tell us whether you believe people spend other people's money just as efficiently as they do their own. Let's get that squared away first.

I'm not David. Please read with more care.

Your question as phrased is ambiguous in meaning. I will take it to mean, do I believe person B spends person A's money just as efficiently as person A spends their own money.

It varies. In some situations, person B spends person A's money more efficiently than person A spends their own money.

Do you favor the elimination of all insurance because it entails someone spending someone else's money? Do you have only the insurance that the law requires? Do you believe that businesses like general contractors, who take customers' money and then spends it for them, do not exist, because the market has eliminated them due to their inefficiency?

David writes:
"Tell us where the nonreligious poor children would attend school if we eliminated public schools. Of course, if you eliminate regulation, children would not be forced by the government to even go to school, nor would schools and teachers need any sort of certification to ply their trade. That is what you advocate, correct?"

Where do non-religious children go to buy hamburgers and ipods or any other consumer good? if public schools were gone, then every parent could pick their child's schools. Muslim school, buddhist school, flat earth school, atheist school, liberal school, etc. etc. The free-market provides massive choices for people.

Again, you read without care. That's a bad habit that makes it difficult to engage in a serious discussion with you, and it calls into question your ability to accurately digest any sort of information as well as to reason rigorously.

I didn't ask where non-religious children would attend school; I asked where non-religious poor children would attend school. Sufficiently poor children buy their hamburgers and iPods nowhere. Therefore, by your logic, poor children would not attend school.

You favor elimination of all government occupation certifications. The market will take care of it.

I certainly advocate a complete separation between school and state just as I hold to a separation of church and state.

So there would be no requirement that children attend school at any level. Therefore, children too poor to purchase schooling would simply not be educated.

The govt has nothing to say to parents about educating their children.

No, you mean it's your preference that the government have nothing to say to parents about educating their children. It is not a factual statement that the government has nothing to say about educating children. Don't conflate a personal desire with a Constitutionally-protected principle such as the separation of religion and government. They are entirely different, until you get a constitutional amendment passed that embodies your principles.

David writes:
"I take it you advocate eliminating government fire departments and returning to a system of private fire companies, as well as privatizing all streets and roads in the United States. All safety regulations -- workplace, product, food, medicine, etc. -- should be eliminated so the market can work most efficiently. Correct?"

I believe in privatizing all the things you mentioned in your first sentence.

So you would eliminate all fire departments and let private companies handle firefighting/rescue/medical emergency response for all Americans. You believe that will result in better firefighting overall.

As you are very confident in your principles, I assume you are already very familiar with how well private firefighting worked in the past, correct? Tell us about all the ways it was better than it is now with government-run fire departments.

You want all streets and roads in the country to be privately owned. The owners would charge each user for traversing their street or road. If you traversed 167 streets and roads on the way to your job, you might pay 167 companies. Each street or road could be in different states of repair, even block-to-block, or perhaps in even smaller units. They need not be repaired at all, or even safe, as there would not be any regulations to impair the free market. Bridges would not have to be periodically inspected for safety.

Of course, sidewalks, too, would be private; pedestrians would be charged for the privilege of walking on them. If you fell behind in your sidewalk or street bill, you would be subject to arrest for trespassing if you stepped outside your home or pulled your car out of your driveway. The free market can be a b!tch!

If the cost of driving on the roads and walking on the sidewalks were hiked dramatically after a neighborhood were settled, the residents might suddenly not be able to afford to live there, so they would have to sell their homes and relocate elsewhere and find new jobs, if possible.That's the free market at work, improving efficiency. But they might not be able to sell their homes, because of the exorbitant cost of driving on the roads and walking on the streets in their neighborhood; who would want to move there? The streets and roads and sidewalks wouldn't need to be maintained, as the residents are essentially captives, but that might be the most efficient business model for private companies, especially as they acquire the roads and streets and sidewalks spanning a large area.

Interstate highways' tolls could be set extremely high, in patches or overall; each mile might be owned by a different company. The market will take care of this by having other companies attempt to purchase rights-of-way paralleling the existing highways, then building their own interstate highways and charging a few cents less per mile. There might end up being five or six complete interstate highway systems competing for traffic after they somehow manage to acquire complete rights-of-way clear across the country. Connecting local roads to those highways might be a problem; the owners of the connecting roads would naturally impose high tolls for the privilege, and they could hike them at any moment. It might be most efficient from a profit standpoint not to maintain these networks at all, but rather to drain profits as rapidly as possible as they deteriorate. The highways in worst shape would charge the least, and the poor would use those the most, leading to increased vehicle maintenance costs and accidents, leading to medical bills and lost work; increased income polarization results.

I am not for removing all safety regulations, but these regulations should be the jurisdiction of local govts.

No, that would violate the core principle you are espousing, and thus it would destroy the power of the free market to reach the most efficient solutions, and you can't have that. Safety regulations interfere with the central mechanism you are promoting, so you must reject them. They must result in a less-efficient outcome than a pure market, correct? You cannot both claim a principle and wield it to argue against anything you don't like, and then abandon it when it suits you; that's a cherry-picking fallacy in your argument if you take that position, and your entire argument collapses. If you agree that regulations can improve the quality of life, you cannot then argue against specific regulations based on a blanket principle that regulations necessarily diminish the quality of life because they undermine the free market. So, which will it be? Stick with your principle and reject regulations, or abandon your principle? You can't have it both ways.

You do not want any government regulation of drugs or certification of professions, such as doctors. The market will sort things out.

There will be no regulations on pollution. Companies will dump whatever they want into the air and water. Well, maybe not the water, because all streams, rivers, and lakes will be privately owned; the owners will sell polluting rights to others. The market will take care of cleaning the air, somehow. The water doesn't need to be clean.

There will be no public land; the government doesn't manage it efficiently. All land will be in private hands. If a factory will pay more than the fees residents could muster for a park, the factory will be built. There may not be any parks. That's how the market works when it comes to real estate.

As there will be no public places (owned by the government, AKA the people) at all, many constitutional protections begin to lose their meaning. A private company can prohibit certain kinds of speech on its property -- that's not censorship. Nothing unconstitutional about that. If all property is private, there is nowhere to speak with constitutional protection. The right to peaceably assemble? Doesn't apply to private property. That's gone. The "public accommodation" nonsense forced on private companies would no longer apply; if a restaurant wants to serve only white people, the market will take care of it, just as it did in the south before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If the market supports segregation and discrimination, you have to obey the market -- it produces the best result, compared to government meddling in matters of commerce. It represents the real will of the people, as expressed through their wallets. That's the beauty of the free market. And since there will be no public schools and no silly "public accommodation" constraints on private businesses, segregated private schools can flourish.

There will be no regulations for workplace safety, child labor, sanitation, food quality, or drug purity. The market will take care of optimizing all those things, just as it did prior to regulations, when life was better in all those ways. Wasn't it?

Two principles liberals and republicans (pardon the redundancy) can learn from Tommy Jefferson. First, govt should be as close to the people as possible. Second, that govt governs best that governs least.

One principle that libertarians can learn from Albert Einstein by way of Roger Sessions: “everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler.”

In case you missed it, Oil_Robb is a fake persona. S/he pretends to be a US-based business owner, but s/he actually lives in Canada and has not engaged in all the anti-Obama activities s/he has detailed. So the whole thing is a fraud.

I wonder if someone on the left is behind the Oil-Robb facade, and has created it in an attempt to make conservatives look ridiculous (and illiterate). If so, it's disgraceful. Progressives I know don't approve of that sort of thing.

But, again, it's so strange that no real conservatives here have spoken out against Oil_Robb's posts. Glass-house mutually-assured-destruction détente?

Societies over some small population do need some level of government. The only question is how much should it cost and who pays.

A small example: it now costs over $40 for tolls to drive from northern florida to massachusetts, and could be more depending on exact locations. Seems like a lot, but roads are super costly, and they aren't being maintained all that well. Heavily-travelled super-highways are manageable as toll roads, paid for by users. The secondary and tertiary roads really aren't, so there has to be some taxation or we won't have roads usable for high speed vehicles.

So I'm for figuring out ways to raise money for domestic necessaries: roads, hospitals, libraries, possibly schools (though making kids sit still and do stuff that is against human nature is not sensible). I'm quite against large intrusive law-enforcement agencies that largely protect corporate interests at home and abroad. The military is in that category.

I have to agree. Oil is our strategic interest in the Middle East and we are such hypocrites, supporting totalitarian governments with billions of dollars so they can continue to repress their citizens.

The real issue is precisely what Bill and Esh refer too but the focus of the blame is totally askew.

The point is that Congress..... the keepers of the purse..... needed to sit down and do their job in terms of putting together a sane and balanced approach to spending cuts which should include foreign aid, entitlements etc.

Instead they take the easy way out and accept a poison pill that was deliberately created to be punitive. Next step in the master plan ...except there clearly isn't one....is to blame and ridicule each other for the cuts.........

Geopolitical interests endure no matter which party is in the White House. There may be some tweaking of the strategies (or colossal blunders in the case of Iraq, and seemingly Afghanistan as well), but the general trajectory can be predicted.

Instead they take the easy way out and accept a poison pill that was deliberately created to be punitive. Next step in the master plan ...except there clearly isn't one....is to blame and ridicule each other for the cuts.........

This is all about making the other side look bad in time to point the finger for the 2014 election season. Nothing more, nothing less.

The venom that is spewed from the Goddless Left (that voted God out at thier National convention) That one day lays on the road to save a tree and the next lays on the road in protest to kill a baby Human makes no sence> There again when you are working for Satan you will always be incoherent. You are sheep...beeing led down a path to destruction and as most jealous of others wealth will want to have everyone poor if they cant have someone elses money.